zete

Maybe he's just channelling Lewis Black.

I hope the STS is stretched or something. The new CTS looks to be as big as the current STS -- at least inside, where it counts. The current STS/CTS aren't that far apart on interior room. As I've not seen the Acadia/Enclave, how big are they compared to the Tahoe or the SRX? Hybrids. Great for the PR. Should shut a lot of people up. I wonder if the Cobalt will be mild or full dual mode? I wonder if the Lambdas are in that bin of 8 hybrids.

Most probably Buick Enclave. Second choice, GMC Acadia.

If the SUVs are selling more slowly, then that market is probably shrinking -- which is what Lutz predicted. But what's going to happen to the competitors with trucks that aren't as nice, get worse mileage, aren't as well built, and, as of next year, can't be had with a hybrid option? Toyo is already complaining that their new truck -- not even out yet -- is too big. I guess they're figuring it'll bomb in the market and are just getting the excuses ready for that eventuality. All this "GM deathwatch" crap is the same thing I heard 10 years ago with the Apple Deathwatch. And as we all know Apple simply disappeared. Their marketshare kept shrinking and they started to just bleed money. Nothing saved them. It was really too bad. All that great history gone.

So Lutz wasn't joking when he said they couldn't show everything in Detroit without taking over the whole show. Cool.

My question is how much larger is the STS compared to the existing STS vs. the new CTS. Why? Because right now the size difference isn't that great and if the CTS is bigger -- as everyone has said it is -- then the new STS has to be up to 7 & S class size. Making another STS only slightly larger than the CTS would be stupid. I'm really looking forward to the autoshow circuit. And thanks for the info on the Enclave. I'm glad its' nearly 100% identical. If it were offered I'd buy it in 6 seat config as per the concept. I never thought it would have a plethora of screens, but 6 buckets would be great, though I'd happily live with 4 buckets and a bench in back that folds flat.

I know what's bugging me, the layout is illogical. If you look at siegen's photo you'll see that the buttons seem removed from the displays. The NAV controls are at the bottom, the NAV is at the top. The radio display is the monochrome one just below the NAV, but it hosts the climate control one. My eyes kept going up and down to find the right buttons. Seems like a strange layout.

Looks much better with less glare, but there are still too many buttons clustered too close together. I should have been clearer. I know you need buttons, but they're all placed so close together. It's like button overload. As for the outside, the pictures linked to has me saying it's even more ungainly. I'm talking about any of the frontal views. I just don't like that grill. Plus, I don't think luxury is a competition to see who has the most -- or least -- buttons. The goal is to provide it in a logical way so it's not confusing. I'd rather have them spread out more. They should've put the NAV buttons beside the NAV, for example. the seat related ones are fine on the floor console area. The way it is it's just too crowded and too busy looking. I'm sure the Enclave and SRX have the same amount of functionality, but have way fewer buttons. Or maybe they're just spread out better.

Woah! What's with all the buttons! I don't like the exterior styling, nor is the way the console merges with the dash all that elegant. That little edge that goes under the dash is just strange looking. Maybe it's the photos, but it just looks awkward. But I guess it matches the awkardness of the outside.

I'll say one last thing about LEDs: I think they would make the car look more expensive. It has little do with reality, it's just a perception thing. And, after all, isn't the thing GM is trying to fix is their perception in the marketplace? If the lack of LEDs is truly a design decision because it makes the car look better I can live with that, too, even though I think LEDs would make it look more expensive and work to GM's advantage. As to the rest of the comment, a quick point. The reason someone buys a particular car is that a) they need one and b) it's better than the competition. Before I purchased the CTS I had a shortlist of cars: CTS, 330, 525, E Class, Audi A4, Lexus GS, Acura TL, and G35. I wanted RWD or maybe AWD. The STS wasn't out when I needed to buy so the CTS was the one, but in the end it didn't matter as the STS wasn't that much bigger so it didn't matter. After a lot of discussion with folks I know who own the various cars the Mercedes and the BMWs fell off the list; their quality was iffy. My wife hated the G35s styling. The Audi was fairly nice, but way too small. And the A6 just felt too big and handled awkwardly. The Lexus was nice, very nice. But the styling was bland. The Acura was interesting but it just didn't handle like the others and I'd rather drive a BMW than an Acura, and so off the list it went. That left the CTS. It was RWD, handled wonderfully, was reasonably large -- my family was smaller then, my kids have shot up faster than expected (my YOUNGEST (13) is 6' tall, for example) -- and the new 3.6l was a great engine, though a tad underpowered, IMO, for the weight of the CTS. However, it handled in the realm of the 3 and 5 series. So, looking for a luxury car in that range with an auto or SMG I bought a fully loaded CTS. As I've mentioned before, the V was an option but without an auto it wasn't going to happen. Does that excuse GM from the shortcomings? No. They overcame them with me because of a variety of reasons. I would've loved the Audi interior in the CTS. But, you see, you just can't rip the interior out of the Audi and dump it into the CTS -- wish though I could. So car purchases are based on tradeoffs. And I felt that there were a slew of stupid tradeoffs that GM did. It diminished a very good car. I believe the next CTS will be great. And when I trade in the CTS for, most probably, an Enclave it will be sorely missed. However, the Enclave will probably be my last family car. The kids are getting older. The Enclave should last me for quite a while and then I can go pick up a nice Screaming Yellow Z06 and my wife and I can enjoy the next phase of our life. But I need to live this phase out first. As I said, buying a car is based on tradeoffs. But so is life.

Your dig was inappropriate, but I'll ignore your capitalized childishness. The CTS is not a V as my wife and daughter drive it, too, and GM in their stupidity didn't provide the V with an auto so I couldn't buy it. Plus, I refuse to row a car anymore. GM should put a SMG-like tranny into these cars, like BMW and Audi. Give us the option. With me they got me into a CTS but I would've bought the V with an SMG. As for whether I like the CTS or not, I do -- that's a given since I own one! And since I own it I figure I can bitch about the stupid shortcomings that shouldn't be on the car in the first place. BTW, I'm not doing the reading. It's my kids in the backseat that are doing the reading. Furthermore, according to your "logic" I can't complain about the car because I bought it? Or is it that if I complain it means I don't like it? It has shortcomings and I'm pointing them out. How is GM supposed to know that certain things have POed their PAYING customers! Only if they comment on it. The fact is, the small things annoy. I bought the CTS because I loved the lines. The interior was a near deal-breaker for me. But in the end I just liked the overall lines too much. And I also spoke with Cadillac about it as they called me after I bought the car. The grab handle in front is not that big a deal, the light in the globe box on a night drive is a pain when your passenger has to rummage around in the dark and it's definitely not "luxury" handing him or her a flashlight. I could provide a list of cheapness issues with the CTS, but it would be huge and GM already has it and has told me it would be fixed with the next CTS. I'll see. So, will people think Buick cheapened out? Generally, I don't know. What I do know is it looks that way to me. If people see something on a competitor they'll wonder why the GM is lacking the feature. People are like that. Then again, I've gone back and taken a look at the concept shots. Sure enough, no LEDs. So, me culpa in that regard. I obviously never noticed, but then I never saw it drive out onto the stage and have its brake lights on, so I can be forgiven. And from the commentary a lot of folks also thought it had LEDs. Finally, and had you thought about this for, oh, a nanosecond, you'd realize that the reason I'm looking at an Enclave is because I have a growing family. That was quite obvious from my prior comments. If it was just me we'd not be having this conversation as I'd be getting a Z06. But I have a family and need something practical. Plus, I'll be the one putting $40+k down on this. Will you? And I think, as a potential customer I have the right to nitpick. It is a lot of money and I want GM to give me a very good reason not to buy a competitor's product. BTW, I hope you're not a salesman as I'd never buy a car from you.

The only ads I see are the clearance of the 2006s. I think the new warranty is doing a number on the 2006s. But it's a temporary problem. Plus, when you see a new lade next to an old one you realize how different they look. I can see why they're having trouble moving the older ones.

What we need is an inability to redirect pollution to others. Right now many shipping firms fly under flags of convenience, but they also dismantle their ships in India for similar reasons. It's just more convenient since India's environmental laws are very lax. They couldn't get away with what's going on in India in the West. And to me that's plain wrong. So an international treaty on pollution is what's required. Trading CO2 credits or moving your landifill to China doesn't remove the problem. Shifting it around the globe leaves the problem intact, but out of your jurisdiction -- which is politically convenient but ethically wrong. And this is the problem with Kyoto. It affects only part of the globe, and the rest can keep on doing whatever they want. It makes no sense. We live on the same ball so anything we do should be universal. In Canada we had the One Tonne Challenge, now gone. I looked up my usage. My household was 1/2 the Canadian average. I don't believe we do anything special, but then when I see how much trash my neighbours have I can't but wonder if they just waste everything, including power. And, no, my household isn't small. It's average. At the time of the challenge it was 5 people (2 adults, 3 kids), 2 cars, 2500 sq. ft. home. We're now down to 4 in the house, with one having moved away after graduating from university. As for a comment from another member as to the cost of vehicles, I don't find them that much more expensive -- especially now that our dollar is up to a reasonable level (nearly 90 cents). You have to figure in all the features we want in base cars how and it shouldn't surprise us that we have to pay for those features (like AC, power windows/doors, etc.). And I don't believe cars in California are piriced differently than anywhere else in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're very welcome.

My argument still stands, greenhouse gases can be substituted in for CO2. Pollutants aren't figured into Kyoto. New studies show that a reduction in pollutants would actually raise temperatures. But this is off topic enough. Besides, Kyoto is more harmful to Ontario -- where all the heavy industry is -- than Alberta. And that argument doesn't wash when you calculate in the fact the Liberals for years did squat, and never cared about the West -- esp. Alberta. And there's no point getting into a long discussion re: Kyoto. I feel it's a seriously flawed treaty, others think otherwise. My attitude is focus on pollutants and reduction on dependence on foreign oil -- even though Canada is a net exporter. Focus should be on efficiency and technologies that result in less "crap" going into the atmosphere, period. We're only poisoning ourselves, so you'd think we'd try to stop that. Of course, we still have to deal with China, India, etc. who are not in Kyoto and who are destroying their environments big time. It'll get worse out there and we need to sort out a system whereby we all do better. China and India are growing at such a pace they'll be a substantial contributor in no time, and yet Kyoto focuses solely on the West as if the world will remain at status quo. Stupid.

Ask and you shall receive: Greenest PM. And I hate Mulroney and what his government was, but no matter. A fact is a fact, regardless of how unpalatable. And the CBC aren't renown for their pro-Conservative slant. The Liberals had more time and more money -- their coffers were overflowing with cash -- and did less than Mulroney. 'tis a shame! No, a disgrace!

I'm confused. When did the Altima become a "large front-wheel drive [sedan]"? What's the Maxima then? A supersized front-wheel drive sedan?

BTW, I live in Ontario and have all my life. As for Kyoto, it wasn't even being implemented by the prior government that supposedly supported it. They talked the talk but failed to walk the Kyoto walk. Besides, Kyoto isn't about pollution, it's about CO2. It's a common misunderstanding with people who think Kyoto is all about pollution. It's not. If you can create a noxious emissions system that reduces CO2 but pumps out 100x as much pollution, you're OK under Kyoto. Kyoto has serious problems. As for costing more, this is the same lame argument that was made back in the 70s when the first emissions standards came in. I don't see anyone complaining about those standards now. Finally, all automakers manufacture cars to California emissions. It's not like they're asking them to do something they don't already know how to do. And a slew of US states are planning to implement California standards, too. Within 10 years California style emissions standards will be the norm.

I have no problems with this. Anything that helps reduce pollution is a good thing. I can't see it slowing sales of cars down since California remains car happy and it's not like you can't buy everything there, anyway. As for why the Conservatives would do such a thing, historically the Conservatives have been "greener" than the other parties. It's one of those ironies that the "right wing" party in Canada is more green than the Liberals, but the Liberals care more about being in power than about doing the right thing. And guess who's bitchin' and moanin' the most? The Ontario Liberal government. Sigh.

Still haven't seen a single Aura in town, but the Cobalts are everywhere -- except the dealer lots. My dealer has none, and but a few HHRs. I actually don't recall seeing an Aveo on the lot, either. Hmmm. But they did have a nice, black Z06 :-). So, did GM get caught with their pants down on the small car front (again)?

Ugly numbers. Toyota's the only one with a grin, though GM might have one, too, considering Ghosn can't point to his sales record of late with any confidence. Things are bleak at nearly -10%. I wonder what they're trending at?

I'm sick and tired of executives that use kid gloves with the media. The media are like the old adage: those that can't do, teach. Well, the media writes about stuff they barely understand. I work in high tech and the number of times media try to explain what we're doing is awe inspiring, only exceeded by their complete inability to comprehend what we're doing. And sometimes it's not possible to "dumb down" the explanation so "regular folk" can comprehend it, yet the media constantly tries. So I applaud Mr. Lutz's constant attempts to educate the morons that are the media.

But since GM isn't badge engineering like the bad old days these two vehicles look radically different (inside and out) and I find the Acadia OK but I really like the lines on the Enclave, so that solution is not viable. It's not a deal breaker, but it is an aggravating nit.

I didn't get hit by a stupid stick, but then I don't remember the concept being driven about, either, so how would I know what the tail lights were like? I can see the argument, but I still think people will think Buick cheapened out. It strikes me that way. And yes, I do appreciate the fact that LEDs go ON and then OFF with a suddenness that is disconcerting to some -- and they're bright. Like I said, I've been burned with little aggravations by GM in the past. I saw this, it aggravates me. I still point to my very expensive and fully loaded CTS and the small stupid things that GM should never have not done, like the lack of reading lamps, handle on the passenger side, etc., etc., etc. And had I seen the CTS as a concept it, too, might be 99% accurate and still be stupid in that they forgot some pretty -- in my opinion -- fundamental things, like lights in the glovebox and in the back seating area!

After I bought the CTS Cadillac sent me a letter asking for honest feedback on my 2004 CTS. I happily obliged and you should've seen the list of "deficiencies" I sent to GM. I got a nice letter from Cadillac saying they'd address those issues with the next gen CTS including what I called the "horridly Teutonic interior". I'm hoping they do. The pictures imply they have. The lack of reading lights, which even the cheapest of my prior cars had, is totally unacceptable. It's why when I see the Enclave, which most probably will be our next car, such a little thing as non-LED tail lights aggravates me. It's supposed to be a Lexus fighter, right? So, fight Lexus not Toyota. As to the comment from another poster re: how old Buick owners are, remember Cadillac owners 6 years ago were well near death. Buick can be resuscitated by good product as well. I see a lot of people my age (mid-40s) driving Lucernes. And it does have a certain presence, though not my type of car. I was expecting to see the same demographic that bought Lacrosses, namely those in retirement, but that's not the case. In fact, Camrys are the cars mostly driven by the elderly in my neck of the woods. One drive in that numbness inspiring, passionless "vehicle" is all you need to do to comprehend why Camrys are loved by those that want to drive an appliance.